Its fixin to go down in wisconsin

[Mills]

Here's a little ditty I think you'll like. 2 drink minimum. Tip your waitress.

Here are the lyrics.
And it's up in Kenosha,
That's where I long to be
Protecting gas stations with /k/ommandos next to me
A /k/omrade on me left, aye another one on me right
And a couple mags of ammo for me little Armalite

Well this brave BLM man came marching up our street,
600 anarkiddies he had lined up at his feet
"Come out you cowardly nazis, come on out and fight!"
He cried "I'm only jokin'!" when he heard the Armalite

And it's up in Kenosha,
That's where I long to be
Protecting gas stations with /k/ommandos next to me
A /k/omrade on me left, aye another one on me right
And a couple mags of ammo for me little Armalite

Well the commies came to visit me, twas in the late hours
With communists and anarchists attacking parked cars
They thought they had me cornered but I gave them all a fright,
With the arm piercing bullets from me little Armalite

And it's up in Kenosha,
That's where I long to be
Protecting gas stations with /k/ommandos next to me
A /k/omrade on me left, aye another one on me right
And a couple mags of ammo for me little Armalite

To my city there came joggers,
They shouted "I can't breathe!"
They burned down all the buildings and they all refused to leave
They rioted and looted, they went strong for 80 nights,
Until I started aiming with me little Armalite

And it's up in Kenosha,
That's where I long to be
Protecting gas stations with /k/ommandos next to me
A /k/omrade on me left, aye another one on me right
And a couple mags of ammo for me little Armalite

The reds came to Kenosha, to riot just for fun
The DNC had told 'em that the cops were on the run
But communists and primates, while on a jog at night,
Say "Remember Kyle Slaughter, and the bloody Armalite"

And it's up in Kenosha,
That's where I long to be
Protecting gas stations with /k/ommandos next to me
A /k/omrade on me left, aye another one on me right
And a couple mags of ammo for me little Armalite

 

[Dougw1515]

No, that is an "accepted truth". In truth, it is a lie.
2+2=4. That is a truth and fact. Although not in the new math. But I digress.
Facts, like theorems are provable. Such as the Pythagorean Theorem. Otherwise it is a theory, not yet proven.
When I say I built an AR, that is a half fact, or truth, because I bought the parts.

Logical or accepted does not make anything the truth or a fact unless they are provable.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I built an AR = False
I assembled an AR = True

It is a truth that Bob built a home = False
It is a truth that Bob contracted his/a home being built

The basic premise that I built an AR is false.
The basic premise that Bob built the house is false.

The comment "Trump caused all these riots in Portland is - A phukin' lie!

ETA: jrb... Just in case it isn't clear I'm in full agreement with your comments regarding truth/facts.

 

[Shady]

You need to explain that.
How do you have truth without facts. Or facts that are not truth.
Not made up statistical facts or half the story facts that only tell half the truth.
Facts and truth go hand in hand. But only if you have all the facts and all the truth.


Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Democratic leaders can explain it perfectly.

 

[cycleguy2300]

I built an AR = False
I assembled an AR = True

It is a truth that Bob built a home = False
It is a truth that Bob contracted his/a home being built

The basic premise that I built an AR is false.
The basic premise that Bob built the house is false.

The comment "Trump caused all these riots in Portland is - A phukin' lie!

ETA: jrb... Just in case it isn't clear I'm in full agreement with your comments regarding truth/facts.

Yall are talking semantics...

Doug is responsible for building the AR
Bob is responsible for building the house.

When someone says "Bob built the house" no one expects that to mean Bob was the only person to work on the house. We all understand they are communicating that Bob is chiefly responsible for the house being built, whether he did in fact swing a hammer or not.

When X hires Y to kill Z, we generally say X killed Z. Did X in fact kill Z? Yes, but X did not in fact pull the trigger. But it is still true and useful to communicate this way because X is chiefly responsible for the incident.

If you want to try to nit pick and say Bob didn't build the house or X didn't kill Z, you can take it another logical step further and say Y didn't kill Z either, Z just had a sever CNS disruption and died on their own...



Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[jordanmills]

So let's throw some more gas on this dumpster fire. Apparently, Chomo Jojo Rosenbaum, the first attacker shot by Rittenhouse, was a serial child molester. According to some court documents posted lately, he didn't get busted for sleeping with a slightly underage girlfriend when he was 18. He was a serial child molester, and buttraped at least two boys between nine and eleven years old. He also got an unreasonably short sentence for it, with release after ten years. Apparently he should have had 35 to life for those offenses.

https://i.postimg.cc/ydDLwPt2/court1.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/pLPq2x3f/court2.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/JzytHBwM/court3.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/KzbYWq18/court4.jpg

 

[candcallen]

So let's throw some more gas on this dumpster fire. Apparently, Chomo Jojo Rosenbaum, the first attacker shot by Rittenhouse, was a serial child molester. According to some court documents posted lately, he didn't get busted for sleeping with a slightly underage girlfriend when he was 18. He was a serial child molester, and buttraped at least two boys between nine and eleven years old. He also got an unreasonably short sentence for it, with release after ten years. Apparently he should have had 35 to life for those offenses.

View attachment 225667

https://i.postimg.cc/ydDLwPt2/court1.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/pLPq2x3f/court2.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/JzytHBwM/court3.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/KzbYWq18/court4.jpg

This was why I never read the details of an inmates crimes. It always stirs the desire to expand the death penalty to at least repeat child molesters if not first time child molesters.

It's hard to do your job when every time you dealt with someone you were fighting the urge to move them to the front of the reapers line.

 

[jordanmills]

This was why I never read the details of an inmates crimes. It always stirs the desire to expand the death penalty to at least repeat child molesters if not first time child molesters.

It's hard to do your job when every time you dealt with someone you were fighting the urge to move them to the front of the reapers line.

Yeah I'm generally anti-death-penalty (mostly because it's too common for the government to make a mistake in applying it) but there are some situations that make me want to re-think that.

 

[candcallen]

Yeah I'm generally anti-death-penalty (mostly because it's too common for the government to make a mistake in applying it) but there are some situations that make me want to re-think that.

I think that as science evolves that death penalty application evolves as well.

I agree, too many ways to phuck that up. Especially with juries required to decide the penalty.

While I'm pro death penalty and pro expanding it to sex crimes I think it should only be allowed in cases with scientific evidence, like DNA or other physical provable corroboration such as clear video, in addition to all the other evidence. So even if found guilty there is no death penalty unless such evidence ties you to the event no matter how strong a jury thinks the evidence is.

I'm a believer that it's better that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted. Expand that to wrongly executed. We have had death row inmates exonerated by such evidence and there is no excuse for any possible wrongful execution nowadays.

IMHO.

 

[Mills]

 

[TipBledsoe]

NYC Mayor de Blasio responds to Trump defunding threat: 'We will see you in court'

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio told President Trump "we will see you in court" on Thursday after the president threatened the federal funding for Seattle, Portland, New York City and Washington, D.C. as part of an effort to target “anarchist jurisdictions” that he claims have “permitted...

www.foxnews.com

Glad to know POTUS is finally cracking down on the liberal lunacy and defunding inept city leaders who are allowing the anarchist destruction and lawlessness.

 

[TipBledsoe]

I think whitehouse press secratary Kayleigh McEnany said it best, that these democratic liberal mayors are DERELICT in thier duties

 

[jrbfishn]

I built an AR = False
I assembled an AR = True

It is a truth that Bob built a home = False
It is a truth that Bob contracted his/a home being built

The basic premise that I built an AR is false.
The basic premise that Bob built the house is false.

The comment "Trump caused all these riots in Portland is - A phukin' lie!

ETA: jrb... Just in case it isn't clear I'm in full agreement with your comments regarding truth/facts.

I needed a good laugh.

Democratic leaders can explain it perfectly.

Yup, the truth is whatever they say it is.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

Yall are talking semantics...

Doug is responsible for building the AR
Bob is responsible for building the house.

When someone says "Bob built the house" no one expects that to mean Bob was the only person to work on the house. We all understand they are communicating that Bob is chiefly responsible for the house being built, whether he did in fact swing a hammer or not.

When X hires Y to kill Z, we generally say X killed Z. Did X in fact kill Z? Yes, but X did not in fact pull the trigger. But it is still true and useful to communicate this way because X is chiefly responsible for the incident.

If you want to try to nit pick and say Bob didn't build the house or X didn't kill Z, you can take it another logical step further and say Y didn't kill Z either, Z just had a sever CNS disruption and died on their own...



Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

No, You are talking semantics. And partial or accepted truth. Not the same as THE truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Being responsible for doing something, or for part of it, are not the same as "I did this" but are accepted as such.
You're not a lawyer by chance???
It depends on what the definition of is, is.......or something like that.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Dougw1515]

Yall are talking semantics...

Doug is responsible for building the AR
Bob is responsible for building the house.

When someone says "Bob built the house" no one expects that to mean Bob was the only person to work on the house. We all understand they are communicating that Bob is chiefly responsible for the house being built, whether he did in fact swing a hammer or not.

When X hires Y to kill Z, we generally say X killed Z. Did X in fact kill Z? Yes, but X did not in fact pull the trigger. But it is still true and useful to communicate this way because X is chiefly responsible for the incident.

If you want to try to nit pick and say Bob didn't build the house or X didn't kill Z, you can take it another logical step further and say Y didn't kill Z either, Z just had a sever CNS disruption and died on their own...



Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

Listen up!!! Doug didn't do shit... ain't built a fukin' thing... didn't plan on building nothing.... I think it was that Bob dude that built the house AND the AR! That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

 

[cycleguy2300]

No, You are talking semantics. And partial or accepted truth. Not the same as THE truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Being responsible for doing something, or for part of it, are not the same as "I did this" but are accepted as such.
You're not a lawyer by chance???
It depends on what the definition of is, is.......or something like that.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I would love to see this "Bob" guy sworn in then asked "did you build this house" and him answer "No". I would die to hear the follow up questions...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Dougw1515]

I would love to see this "Bob" guy sworn in then asked "did you build this house" and him answer "No". I would die to hear the follow up questions...follow up question - Did you build the AR????

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

NYC Mayor de Blasio responds to Trump defunding threat: 'We will see you in court'

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio told President Trump "we will see you in court" on Thursday after the president threatened the federal funding for Seattle, Portland, New York City and Washington, D.C. as part of an effort to target “anarchist jurisdictions” that he claims have “permitted...

www.foxnews.com

Glad to know POTUS is finally cracking down on the liberal lunacy and defunding inept city leaders who are allowing the anarchist destruction and lawlessness.

I'm getting older and more senile, but....
Don't most of the Fed laws and grants have requirements that have to be met by the State and local entities that get them?? If they are not meeting those requirements, the POTUS is entirely legal in withholding them as the law requires as passed by Congress. It's part of the job of the Administrative branch to ensure that the Justice department enforces the Laws passed by Congress and signed into Law as written.
A blanket defunding? Nope. But anything they have defaulted on is fair game.
We'll see what he is defunding.
Could be Trump is playing another game of 3D chess, and they are still playing checkers.



Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

Listen up!!! Doug didn't do shit... ain't built a fukin' thing... didn't plan on building nothing.... I think it was that Bob dude that built the house AND the AR! That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Well now you're talking at least mostly truth.....


Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

I'm getting older and more senile, but....
Don't most of the Fed laws and grants have requirements that have to be met by the State and local entities that get them?? If they are not meeting those requirements, the POTUS is entirely legal in withholding them as the law requires as passed by Congress. It's part of the job of the Administrative branch to ensure that the Justice department enforces the Laws passed by Congress and signed into Law as written.
A blanket defunding? Nope. But anything they have defaulted on is fair game.
We'll see what he is defunding.
Could be Trump is playing another game of 3D chess, and they are still playing checkers.



Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

That is my understanding as well.

 

[toddnjoyce]

No, You are talking semantics. And partial or accepted truth. Not the same as THE truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Being responsible for doing something, or for part of it, are not the same as "I did this" but are accepted as such.
You're not a lawyer by chance???
It depends on what the definition of is, is.......or something like that.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Synonyms aren’t semantics; they are accepted uses of different words having the same meaning, which is why truth is belief based and fact is logic based.

Synonyms & Antonyms of build (Entry 1 of 2)
Definition: to form by putting together parts or materials
//he spent hours building a model airplane from a kit//

Synonyms for build
assemble, confect, construct, erect, fabricate, make, make up, piece, put up, raise, rear, set up

Thesaurus results for BUILD

Synonyms for BUILD: construct, assemble, make, create, erect, found, establish, fabricate; Antonyms of BUILD: destroy, dismantle, strike, disassemble, demolish, take down, ruin, tear down

www.merriam-webster.com